Half way through a NPQ webinar on Nonprofit Leadership Transitions and Organizational Sustainability (which will be very helpful in planning our November 27th Creative Champions workshop on Succession Planning) it hit me. The performing arts has for years been using a shared or co-leadership model that the wider non-profit community has recently begun to explore as a progressive alternative to top down hierarchical leadership.

The performing arts is one of the only (perhaps the only? I can’t think of another) sector that commonly appoints two people with distinct and separate skills and day to day responsibilities to lead their organizations. Our Managing and Artistic Directors each report to the board and are jointly responsible for the overall success of the organization.

How do they do that? With very little help from either the board (which rarely tries to define how the relationship works when they hire) or any established researchable best practices. It’s essentially left to us to build an understanding that’s productive and mutually satisfying (and that the board is happy with.) I wish our community were more inclined to analyze and write about how we co-lead – and also collaborate, create, etc. – because there are a large number of people in the non-profit, for profit and academic worlds who would be hugely interested.

Certainly the Artistic Director has to be an active partner in leading the board and in succession planning. It rarely turns out well when the AD leaves board matters entirely to the GM.

Ruby Johnson and Devi Leiper O’Malley, two clearly brilliant young women living in different countries and co-leading the international non-profit FRIDA | The Young Feminist Fund, have written the most helpful piece I’ve seen on the topic. Their five good ideas (understanding your unique contributions, accepting your limitations, and building a collective leadership style; getting clear on what decisions you share and which you do not; looking after each other – prioritizing your collective well-being; the importance of flexibility, boldness and documentation; and being comfortable with asking for help, because collective knowledge, power, and celebration are everything!) are as good as it gets.

I had a conversation this morning with a long-time arts board member who feels that now, just as when he first started, most board members don’t understand what they’re supposed to be doing. He personally took the time to mentor new board members and his board developed, over time, a detailed description of board responsibilities. But there’s still no universal template, no rule book, no easy answers.

Here’s one straightforward idea: board members are supposed to add value to the organization; their most important role is to take the long view – asking “what could be” before asking “what if” if things go wrong. There should be a complementary and collaborative leadership relationship between the board and CEO – each making different decisions, pulling different levers, but sharing the objective of creating the greatest possible value for the company. The board’s job, then, is to define culture, strategize, communicate vision, appoint the CEO, and inspire them.

This piece says that boards of community-based nonprofits should be concerned not primarily with financial oversight and accountability but with the ongoing sustainability of their organizations. Boards have to understand and engage with the “interdependent mix of programs and fundraising activities that work together to achieve a set of impacts and financial results…(so they can) meaningfully assist with the dogged pursuit of sustainability in which so many of their executives find themselves.” There’s no wiggle room here: board work includes resource development.

In 2005 the charitable sector in the UK actually developed a Code of Governance, now being revised to place greater emphasis on the responsibility of trustees “to excel in their role and provide strong leadership.” Seventy-four percent of charity chief executives say their groups use the code, which helps them “meet changing expectations of donors, public sector clients, and those they serve.”

Among the changes currently being considered are:

Guidelines that help boards promote prudence, but also understand that being risk averse is itself a risk

Regularly assessing whether or not the work of the charity is still relevant in a changing world

I’m going to quote extensively from a post by Nina Simon at Museum 2.0 on What a board is for because I think she’s got it right.

“For my first couple years as a nonprofit executive director, I was mystified about the board of trustees. Beyond the legal requirements, I didn’t understand what it was for and why it was necessary…I thought of the board as a benign, friendly force. I saw them as supporters, advisors, fundraisers, and champions. I expected them to provide guidance to keep the organization on the right track, like bumpers on bowling lanes…I wanted their support, participation, and advice, but—when I’m being really honest with myself—not their leadership.

All that changed when we started the (large new) Abbott Square (capital) project in 2013. Suddenly, I was way out of my comfort zone. I knew a bit about community planning, creative placemaking, and business planning, but that was it. I knew nothing about capital campaigns, real estate development, contract negotiations, nor city permitting processes. I didn’t need a little advice; I needed deep partners to explore what the project could be and how it would work.

And so I turned to my board…Every step of the project, board members extended our reach and improved the project. They provided superb expertise matched by thoughtful enthusiasm that money couldn’t buy. And they took ownership alongside me of the key decisions, budget allocations, and struggles along the way. The most important thing they took co-ownership of was the courage to see the project through. If they hadn’t been there…I probably would have pulled back or shrunk the project at key stress points.

This project taught me that a great board is not one that supports the staff and buys into the Executive Director’s vision. A great board supplements the staff and expands the vision. They take you places you could never go by yourself.”

I’m really not against using audience data to refine and improve outreach and marketing. But I don’t see a big upgrade in people’s box office and data base systems, nor an increase in marketing staff to input and analyze attendance details.

Are we back to basics, then? If we are then we’d better be doing the basics well. And I think, for the most part, we are.

Like the Theatre Centre’s Eight Companies Under One Roof marketing campaign. “Sharp-edged. A treasure. Vigorous and intense. Redolent with disturbing beauty. Dynamo. These are some of the words which have been used to describe the work of the eight celebrated dance companies which, by some happy coincidence, are all renting our space at some point this year to present their creations.” It makes the season sound so very exciting.

It’s more than just a lifetime joy (although it certainly is that.) The proliferation of book clubs, across ages and other demographics, indicates that reading helps answer a deeply felt need for thoughtful discussion and exchange of views.

Book Clubs for Inmates at the Centre for Social Innovation runs 29 clubs in Canadian prisons and halfway houses, providing participants with communications skills plus the chance to experience and talk about a variety of perspectives and life experiences – either reflecting or differing from their own.

Reading is also the surest path to an emotional understanding of another time, another place, other people. The news has been full of stories about the 100-year-old World War 1 battle of Vimy Ridge, often accompanied by photographs of unthinkable destruction and devastation. But if you want to really understand Vimy, Sebastian Faulks’s Birdsong will sear it into your mind and heart forever. Just as Madeleine Thien’s Do Not Say We Have Nothing is essential to understanding the impact of the Cultural Revolution.

Reading books, like participation in other cultural activities, is associated with better health, volunteering, and strong satisfaction with life. However, rather unfairly as far as I’m concerned, it seems that reading is not one of the critical factors for maintaining life-long peak performance, memory, productivity, and immune function. I’ll still have to increase the number of classes I take at the gym, and sign up for another improv class (because it’s commonly known that the best way to have a good life is to follow all the improv rules, all the time….)

Writing is another story. In the arts, we’re supposed to be good at storytelling and for the most part we are – not just on the creative side, but also in our outreach, fundraising, publicity, even social media materials. I think it’s because our administrations are riddled with English majors.

If you don’t think good writing counts spend some time on a grant or prize jury, or on persuasively presenting a new idea or strategy to your Board. It counts.

I found a somewhat unexpected insight into the importance of honesty and complexity in our communications with donors and audience members in a piece from Nonprofit Quarterly. Carlo Cuesta asks why we diminish the story of our work by confining it in a predictable and simplified context. If everything in our organizations is always going well; if we are all perpetually inspired and inspiring; if actors and dancers are always generous; and rehearsals are always proceeding from happy discovery to happy discovery – then why would anyone really care about one company over another? “In order to tell our own story, we need to listen to and embrace the stories of those we wish to reach. A story is a gift, not a donor-acquisition strategy.”

It’s a cri de cœur from arts advocate Matt Burriesci who’s facing up to the reality “that the NEA and the NEH as we have known them are likely to be completely dismantled in the next 24 months…” (Or sooner ) How have the arts been complicit? “…because we, as cultural leaders…have spent far too much time articulating the economic and ancillary benefits of our disciplines and not enough time actually building and serving the culture.” Nor communicating that “The arts and humanities have value because they make us better human beings.”

A grave cautionary tale, for sure. But I wonder if our problem in Ontario isn’t that we’ve spent too little time articulating any of the benefits of the arts? The provincial government hasn’t provided an increase to the Ontario Arts Council’s $60 million annual base budget since 2009. The OAC receives $4.29 per capita compared to $13.33 for Quebec’s provincial arts funder. Not the best way, I’m afraid, to develop a “creative economy” – one of our government’s stated priorities – nor to “create jobs and growth”.

It’s unlikely we’ll see any unexpected announcements in 2017, but thankfully the arts community is gearing up to press for increased funding in the 2018 pre-election budget. Cheers to the Provincial Arts Service Organizations (PASOs) for taking on this important leadership role. Here are my hopes and dreams for a year of successful advocacy:

The true value of the arts – that they are the highest expression of humanity, that they touch and change hearts and minds, that they are the best way to stir empathy, compassion and understanding – is understood by millions of people. They should all – board members and audiences, school kids, teachers and parents – be encouraged to become our Champions. Letters, phone calls, emails, and personal communications from Ontarians who love but don’t earn their living from the arts would be a powerful underpinning to the direct advocacy of a.s.o.’s, arts organizations and artists.

But once you’re in a meeting with an elected official you need a range of facts, statistics and arguments to secure their support. Of the many politicians I’ve met with over the years:

Some are devoted to the arts, understand their impact and are willing to work on our behalf. They’re energized by hearing from their constituents and want facts and figures to help persuade their colleagues.

Some appreciate the arts personally, but are afraid that supporting them will put them off-side with voters. (I suspect this describes many members of the Ontario government.) Their spines can be stiffened by hearing from voters, and by cogent arguments about the arts’ contributions to tourism, the economy and jobs.

Some have nothing against the arts, but feel it’s an issue that lacks “urgency.” A groundswell of support would increase urgency, and this sort of politician will be open to arguments about inclusion, equity, youth and community development through the arts.

Some feel that government shouldn’t prop up a sector not supported by the market; they don’t want to fund the playtime pursuits of snobs and elites. U.S. politicians who’ve been trying to defund the NEA and NEH fall into this category – and we shouldn’t forget that there are and always have been Canadian examples. Would a public outcry give them pause? It’s worth a try.

Last but not least, it’ a rare politician who wants to deny their own children or grandchildren the opportunity to be inspired by the arts. Arts education is our secret weapon, one we use too rarely and not well enough.

Even though we prefer to be valued for our profound impact on people’s lives, it’s important that we don’t underestimate or dismiss the economic and social value of what we do. Ontario’s cultural sector is 4.1% of Ontario’s GDP, contributing $27 billion a year to the Ontario economy. This is larger than agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting ($4.8 billion), mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction ($6.2 billion), accommodation and food services ($10.8 billion), utilities ($11.4 billion), and transportation and warehousing ($21.5 billion). In 2010, there were 301,100 jobs directly related to culture industries in Ontario in 2010, or 4.5% of total employment. Far more is done by the province to support sectors with smaller economic impact providing fewer jobs.

I would love to see a provincial version of Toronto Arts Facts,which has been successful in detailing the economic and social value of the arts to Toronto, and Toronto Arts Stats, which has been equally successful in detailing the population’s wide support and involvement in the arts.

I would also love to see the Ontario government put their money where their “creative economy” mouth is and provide an appropriate, generous increase to the Ontario Arts Council in next year’s budget.

We started on February 7th with a special session on governance and fundraising at Artist-run Centres, arts service and membership organizations. It was a hot topic: people braved the year’s slickest ice storm to be there – a testament, I think, to the special role and satisfactions of serving organizations whose missions involve improving the opportunities, strength and voice of artists. Many creative professionals have their first board experiences at Artist-run Centres or a.s.o.’s, hopefully moving on to spread good governance practices (and creative fundraising chops) throughout the sector. As always, it was fascinating to hear the commitment and pertinent questions of many of those in the room.

Details on upcoming sessions will be announced soon, but if you’d like to get a head start on our topics for the rest of the year (and remember that Creative Champions is the only ongoing networking and learning opportunity for non-profit board members in the Province) here are a few advance readings:

I hadn’t thought about it in these terms until I read this brief post in Nonprofit Quarterly. Could it be that the success of many arts managers rests on an unrecognized skill – that of being dauntlessly determined to succeed no matter how difficult and terrifying the situation?

It sounds right to me and I could reel off the names of GMs I’ve known whose eyes lit up with excitement when faced with doing the impossible on no budget. No wonder companies find it difficult to replace these warrior managers when they leave.

Because it’s equally true that the stress of many arts managers rests on that same factor. Maytree’s Five Good Ideas recently featured Dr. Kwame McKenzie, CEO of the Wellesley Institute, talking about stress management and resiliency. He posted an illuminating link to “The Inverted-U model” which shows that peak performance is achieved when people experience a moderate level of pressure (not an endless series of days with nothing but.)

That’s why one of the findings in the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts’ (TAPA’s) recently released Stats Report Phase Four is so alarming for the future of our industry. Despite increasing numbers of productions and performances, TAPA members report a decline of more than 50% of full-time and part-time artistic and non-artistic staff in the past decade. If this is true, then managers’ ability to dance on the head of a pin is not sustainable.

What do you think, my friends? Is this an urgent enough reason to rally behind a full-out push for increased funding to the Ontario Arts Council?

Let’s also spend a moment on an equally interesting counterpart: skills we don’t know we don’t have.

Ask yourself if these are among the skills you use in your leadership role as the manager of an arts organization:

Are you always recruiting new board prospects; watching for future leaders: identifying, cultivating and bringing forward new members? Do you have a succession process and system in place?

At board meetings do you bring reports that show your vision, leadership ability and competence?

Do you credit your board when they make important decisions that move the organization forward? Do you report back to them so they know the results of their actions?

Do you understand that in your day-to-day relationship with board members, information is power – especially when shared? Do you inform board members between meetings of what’s going on? Do you take the time to meet with them one on one on issues they’re most interested in?

Denny Young ends his post by asking “Is this a lot of work? Yup. But isn’t managing interfering, mistrusting Boards harder?”

I would add one more skill to his list.

Do you share with your board members the context and endemic challenges of running professional arts organizations? Do you recruit them to be “creative champions”, speaking out on behalf of the arts to elected officials and other decision-makers?

Isn’t it harder to achieve positive change for the arts without involving all our most passionate supporters in the effort?

Sandi was an actor, activist and force of nature. She was an early leading champion of diversity on stage and screen; an untiring proponent of “non-traditional casting” (and it really was non-traditional at the time) and the founder and producer of the first national casting directory of visible and audible minorities. We collaborated often and joyfully around the Toronto Theatre Alliance’s Cross Cultural Caucus. She was an exceptional actor on stage, T.V. and screen; one of the founding members of Obsidian Theatre; and the first woman and first person of colour to be elected president of ACTRA Toronto. Her beautiful rumbling laughter could fill a room, and one of Sandi’s hugs would warm you for days.

Marjorie was the first, the very first, funder of Creative Trust: Working Capital for the Arts, using her small discretionary budget as President and CEO of the Toronto Community Foundation to help fund a feasibility study for a new venture in sustaining mid-sized creative music, theatre and dance companies. She was intellectually curious, trusting and warmly supportive – and delighted by Creative Trust’s eventual success. Many years later we were honoured to be included in her wise and invaluable book Governing with Soul (written when she was 79 – setting a high, high bar for non-profit career achievement!)

“Marjorie Sharpe’s new bookabout compassion, caring – and, yes, soul – as a factor in how boards work brings a new vocabulary and an interesting new perspective to the topic of good governance…It is a deeply felt, values and vision based approach…with an emphasis on respect, fulfillment, compassion and shared values.”

Sudha was a pioneering producer and promoter of Indian dance in Canada, artistic director of the Kalanidhi Fine Arts festival, member of a close and accomplished family (Menaka Thakkar was her sister), and leading light of Toronto’s dance community. She was also one of the finest collaborators I’ve ever worked with, a calm, generous and delightful partner when Toronto Dance Theatre had the honour of helping host dynamic dance legend Chandralekha’s only tour of Canada. I loved hearing her voice on the phone as we dealt with the sometimes complicated details of the tour (which included Chandralekha setting a dance on the TDT company) – and seeing her in person was always a joy. (Here is a link to the beautiful memorial presented by her family and friends )

I was much too in awe of Joan Chalmers to claim her as a personal friend, but she was a huge presence and unmatched example of fierce and indomitable support for the arts. The Chalmers Awards for Creativity and Excellence in the Arts had extraordinary impact on the national arts scene. Toronto Dance Theatre was one of the 21 totally surprised and immensely grateful recipients of Joan’s generosity on her 70th birthday in May, 1998. “In 17 minutes, she gave away $1-million. The unwary recipients were gobsmacked and profoundly grateful for this reverse birthday gift. As they thanked her, Ms. Chalmers smiled through her tears.” It was an unforgettable lesson in the joy of giving.

I will also always be grateful for Joan’s founding of the M. JOAN CHALMERS NATIONAL AWARD FOR ARTS ADMINISTRATION – shining a light on some of the cultural sector’s most creative and talented, but too often unacknowledged, professionals. Four of my very best friends received that honour between 1995 and 2001, its final year.

The Ontario Nonprofit Network’s Nonprofit Driven 2016 conference revealed an unexpectedly forceful consensus. It’s time for both government and non-government funders to move to trust-based grantmaking. Vu Le’s description of a gradual shift to “a default starting relationship between funders and nonprofits (that) is one of suspicion” is as recognizable here as below the border. We see it in funder practices like restricted funding and application forms that are rigid and prescriptive – all designed, it seems, to make nonprofits more “accountable.”

It appears, from a range of presentations and discussions at the conference – including one I participated in called Shifting Sands: Trends in Nonprofit Funding – that we are collectively both puzzled and fed up. The arts and other nonprofit communities want to spend more time improving our programs and changing people’s lives, and less time calculating which of our line item expenses is eligible for funding and what percentage of each we want the funder to cover.

The Conference also revealed a strong move towards meaningful evaluation: strategies that help us do our work better, tied to learnings that are useful to grantee, grantor and our colleagues in the field. Often and increasingly, nonprofits are told what to evaluate and how to evaluate it, and then are left to their own devices to get it done. ONN has been building an evaluation agenda that asks “What are we trying to learn? Will it lead to action? and How can we help each other?” – and has produced an evaluation discussion guide to help nonprofits develop useful evaluation criteria and processes.

The ONN blog also contains a forceful argument by Andrew Taylor for accountability to the communities where our work happens, as a first priority.

No one should mistake these discussions and initiatives for resistance to accountability – or to learning (which should be aimed at continuously improving our programs and practices) – or to keen observation and analysis of results (to help us understand what really works and how best to make a real difference) – or to sharing results (not only with funders but also with colleagues, to move our collective efforts forward.)

Why are some funders defining “accountability” as how closely our projects fit into a detailed theory of change whose impact, process and results are pre-set by the funder? It may help to remember that the 2015 survey of What Canadian Donors Want shows that public trust in Canadian charities has increased six percent since 2011 to 73%, and that more Canadians than ever believe that the nation’s nonprofits are well-managed and act responsibly with the donations they receive. We must be doing something right.

The arts community is uniquely blessed in having dedicated arts funding agencies that act at arm’s length from government; provide operating funding; where assessment is by peer juries; where staff and jury members understand the comparative impact of applicants on the arts and larger community, and know from experience what’s involved in building the organizations and productions being funded; where program changes are aligned to the stated goals of community; and where communications are open and continual. The latter is an essential requirement of good grantmaking, and all the rest are the basics of best funding practice.

The arts have a special difficulty in measuring the intrinsic impact of participating in our programs, and the expanding impact this may have on other aspects of a person’s life or of a community. But I do think we know how to measure joy, and that’s a good starting point for whether our work is meaningful and successful.

Noticeably missing from this list, and the elephant in the room at the conference, is our province’s largest non-profit funder, the Ontario Trillium Foundation. I was going to list all the OTF’s changes that have confounded and angered the nonprofit community, but that would be long and depressing. I will quote only one colleague as example: “It was already a crapshoot ‘cause none of us know how they’re making those decisions – but now they’re telling us we can only roll the dice once a year?!” Okay, two: “Writing these grants has become like The Hunger Games: a fight for survival where you don’t need to be the strongest to win, just the smartest.”

We would all be happy, even delighted, to help the OTF rediscover its chops as a trusted and excellent grantor. But not by way of filling in an online survey directed to its “customers”…

Last week’s Get on Board workshop (October 26, 5:30 – 8 pm at the Textile Museum) was a rare opportunity for members of arts boards to hear directly from a major funder about the importance and impact of good governance.

Claire Hopkinson, Toronto Arts Council and Toronto Arts Foundation Director and CEO, made it very clear that good boards do matter to the financial and administrative viability and overall well-being of the organizations that apply to TAC for funding. In fact, the Creative Champions Network (a TAF initiative that’s presented 5 workshops for arts board members in 2016, following an initial 2014-15 series on Getting the Basics Right) was formed to help board members build their skills, understand their roles and responsibilities, and hear about the most important ways to help their organizations thrive – while sharing challenges, triumphs and good ideas with fellow board members.

As always the room was full and Claire, with panelists David Abel, Michael Wheeler and Michelle Yeung, all speaking from an amazing depth and breadth of experience, offered a full slate of insights and useful advice. From Claire’s presentation:

Running an arts organization is challenging and complex: it’s always best when artistic, staff and board leaders are bringing their different skills to the task of making an arts organization thrive

There’s a huge variety in size, type, vision and “culture” among Toronto’s arts organizations, and an equally varied number of creative solutions to effective board work: the Toronto Arts Council isn’t looking for a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to governance

Good governance isn’t only about the board’s work, but about how the board, artistic and management leaders reinforce and support each other‘s work

The best boards pay particular attention to the company’s future and sustainability, providing financial care and oversight, building resources and participating in long term planning

From our panelists during the very lively Q&A:

Having short (1- or 2-year) renewable (or not!) ensures that board spots are filled by energetic individuals who love the art, “get” the organization, and contribute in positive ways

Boards are especially valuable in building connections with the community, drawing new people closer to the organization

Every board member should make an annual donation in an amount that “makes them proud” (isn’t that a wonderful way to think about it?)

A board’s role evolves as an organization evolves: many boards start out as hands-on supporters, but take on more policy and advisory responsibilities as the company grows and develops

It can be lonely at the top: the best board chairs act as sounding boards for their Artistic or Managing Directors, becoming invaluable partners in problem-solving

Next year’s Creative Champions Get on Board sessions and dates will be announced soon, starting with Diversifying Arts Boards and including Fundraising for Boards 2.0 and Succession Planning. Make sure you’re on the mailing list to receive information about upcoming events by sending a note to Natalie Kaiser [email protected].